WTO “framework” looks safe

It is like­ly that the “frame­work text”:http://www.inquit.com/article/284/edging-toward-a-wto-framework-agreement will attract ‘con­sen­sus’. No major par­tic­i­pant has indi­cat­ed that it will object to the most con­tentious sec­tion: “agriculture”:http://www.inquit.com/article/286/a-guide-to-the-annex-on-agriculture. Of course, the Indi­an gov­ern­ment could decide to hold out to the last moment—as it did in Doha in 2001. bq. From India’s point of view, the draft on agri­cul­ture does not pro­vide the required bal­ance, fair­ness or equi­ty between the pro­vi­sions for the devel­oped coun­tries and those of devel­op­ing coun­trie (“Navhind Times”:http://www.navhindtimes.com/stories.php?part=news&Story_ID=07206) And we have still to hear from the ‘Group of 90’ African, Caribbean and Least Devel­oped coun­tries who stopped the nego­ti­a­tions cold in sun­ny Can­cún.

Peter Gallagher

Peter Gallagher is student of piano and photography. He was formerly a senior trade official of the Australian government. For some years after leaving government, he consulted to international organizations, governments and business groups on trade and public policy.

He teaches graduate classes at the University of Adelaide on trade research methods and the role of firms in trade and growth and tweets trade (and other) stuff from @pwgallagher